Killer Domestic Drones, Did Rand Paul Change His Mind?

There is a bit of a debate about the use of drones to kill people.  Over the last ten years, the use of drones has increased, and the technology has moved forward.

Basically, a drone is a remote controlled airplane.  I guess the actual definition continually varies, but to me it means an airplane with a video camera in it that relays the view back to a remote operator.  Apparently the real definition of drones includes non-human non-remote computer controlled aircraft, but I think that is an entirely different thing.  For me, the key thing about drones is that they are using human intelligence.  The controversial use of drones is to assassinate suspected terrorists with missiles fired from the drone, which results in a lot of collateral damage (i.e. probably innocent people killed or maimed in the strikes.)

Recently, the US administration announced that they would expand the use of drones to Americans as well as foreigners, which resulted in a great outcry. Then it was announced that absolutely no Americans would be killed in America.  This targeting of Americans would only be if these people holding American citizenship were overseas engaged in anti-American terrorist plots (or suspected of doing so).

But now we come back to America.  Rand Paul, the libertarian politician and son of Ron Paul, filibustered the use of drones in America. But  after the Boston Marathon bombings, Rand Paul backed down and said that he never opposed using drones in an immediately threatening situation, for example a person coming out of a liquor store, after committing a robbery,  with a gun and fifty dollars.

The Young Turks (Cenk Uygur rant about Rand Paul's about face)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07MH-WhrlK8

Rand Paul (Before Boston bombings)

“No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” 

Rand Paul (after)

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” 

A political blogger commenting on Rand Paul
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/rand-paul-faces-blowback-after-new-drone-comments/

How can we ever have an intelligent debate about topics like this when people appear to be willing to shift their position dramatically depending on how they feel on a given day?  I believe this is a dramatic shift in position, although many right wing conservatives do not think it is.  Apparently, for right wingers, it was so obvious drones would and should be used for killing bad guys, that they forgot to mention it.  They are only opposed to drones flying over their outdoor hot tubs.

More questions: Since when is somebody carrying a gun fair game in the USA?  I thought there was this thing about "the right to bear arms"?  I am probably missing something, but when this person comes out of the liquor store with a gun and fifty dollars, how do you know that he committed the crime?  And is he (she) really an immediate threat?  Wouldn't that depend on what kind of gun they were carrying, on where they were pointing it, on whether it was loaded, or if maybe it was a toy gun?  I'm thinking that a person coming out of the liquor store with a gun and $50 is relatively harmless unless you try to stop them.

A domestic police drone would probably not be equipped with Hellfire missiles.  At least I hope not.  Some possible weapons a domestic drone could be equipped with would be smaller guns, rubber bullets, tear gas, a taser, paintball bullets, maybe a net?   A domestic drone only needs to detain, slow down, or track an individual.  A foreign drone  kills mainly because it operates without human police assistance.

Being a Canadian, I don't really understand the USA, but I remember back in the early nineties, in Panama City Beach, Florida, seeing a sign "Drive Thru Liquor and Machine Gun Rental".  Assuming I went in there and rented a machine gun, then the person behind me in line pulled a robbery, I could be killed by a drone on my way out. (according to Rand Paul's scenario.)

Picture: Huffington Post comments on drones replacing police helicopters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/domestic-drones_n_2854589.html

Jim Carey, Charlton Heston and Fox News

Jim Carrey got himself into some hot water on Fox News.  From what I understand, he made a spoof country-music video about guns.  In this video, one "funny" joke was that Charlton Heston couldn't get into heaven because St. Peter could not pry the gun from his "cold, dead hands".  (and I guess we are to assume Heaven has a "check your guns at the door" policy, also funny)

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks?feature=watch

To some people, this is humour.  But to Fox News, apparently this video is not funny.  So they accused Jim Carrey of being a meddling foreigner, who is getting into the gun debate.  By foreigner, of course they mean he was born in Canada.

It seems this whole idea of being "born in the USA" is starting to become a central idea in the Republican propaganda.  I'm not sure why they have taken this stance, as some conservatives happen to be foreign born also.  (just one off the top of my head, was Senator McCain who ran for President opposite Barack Obama in 2008).

Anyway, coming back to Jim Carrey. He made a Youtube video which is equally accessible to all countries. (I think)  Anyway, I saw it in Canada, and I'm Canadian.  So I assume it was not targeted to the USA exclusively, as this video was funny to me, and we do have our own gun debate in Canada.  Our gun debate is pretty much the same as the USA, with gun nuts claiming to never give up their guns until we pry them from their cold dead hands.

In the final analysis, Jim Carrey made a video for the US website "Funny or Die", and it is available on the world wide web. It's really a low blow to accuse him of being born in Canada, especially since this video is equally available to Canadians and Americans, and applies equally to both.  Technically, I could have made the very same video, and put it up on Youtube.  Does that mean I would be accused by Fox News of being a "foreigner" and interfering in US politics?

In a related note, the Republicans are quite annoyed to find out that Ronald Reagan was in favour of universal background checks for gun owners.  Seems quite natural, as he was a victim of a shooting himself.

Picture: Charlton Heston's gun collection. Go ahead and click on the picture, in case you need a blow-up (not literally of course).  Could somebody who needs that many guns really be happy in heaven?

http://www.ultimatesportsmen.com/weird/ch.htm

P.S. Would it cancel Jim Carrey's video if a Canadian-born actor came in on the other side of the gun debate?  Here is William Shatner on why we should not have gun control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFaLokC9hqk

I think that evens things up.

Self Defence With Guns Lesson 2: Be Prepared

This is lesson 2 in the Public Service education series "How to defend yourself with a gun".  To recap lesson 1, in brief "Do not threaten to shoot people with your gun unless they are actually trying to kill you in the extremely near future."

Now for lesson 2, how to defend yourself with a gun:  "Be Prepared".  In this lesson, I am going to assume the worst is about to happen.  One or more men armed with assault rifles and handguns are planning to burst into your home or car, or maybe just attack you on the street in order to kill you and take your money and your women.  These men are clever, good shooters, and have the element of surprise.

Given the scenario above, how do you prepare yourself?  I'm not talking about learning to aim correctly, that's lesson 3.  In this lesson we are going to learn how to have your guns at the ready at all time.  The strategy is based on the fact that you will have only 4 seconds advanced warning between detecting the attackers and getting your gun out, with a full clip, pointing in the correct direction.

Preparedness starts while you are asleep.  You should have a loaded handgun under your pillow at all time, but don't place your finger on the trigger.  That will come when you are awakened from your sleep by several armed men breaking in through your window with the intent to kill you, and more.

Next, time to wake up.  Depending on your morning ritual, you will probably be in the bathroom at some point.  Make sure the door is locked, and keep the gun loaded and ready at all times, except don't take it into the shower with you unless it is waterproof.  If you are on the toilet, I suggest placing the gun on a nearby shelf.

I am going to assume you can at least wear a quick draw holster with a loaded handgun when eating, driving, or at work.  Some problems will arise if you are involved in sports such as water polo, speed skating, and dog racing.  Actually, let's just include every sport known to man except jogging.  For jogging, you can actually wear the holster. But for other sports like water polo, you will need to disarm for a while.  I suggest a buddy system.  Find another gun aficionado like yourself, who also likes to play water polo.  You offer to guard him while he enjoys the sport, in return for him guarding you while you enjoy the sport unencumbered by a loaded gun.  The buddy system will work fine for basketball, hockey, baseball, football (European and American).  And all other sports except hang gliding, bungee jumping, and water skiing.  It may just be best to avoid those three sports altogether, as there is no known way to defend yourself with a gun while engaged in those pastimes.  If you have some ideas, please leave a comment below.

So now having decided on a strategy to protect yourself from your assailants, it's time to think about protecting your loved ones while you are not near them.  There are three basic ways to do this.  Hiring armed guards is one way.  Another way is to train your loved ones to use a gun just like you do (sleep with the loaded gun under the pillow), and their own buddy system (not using your buddy, but they find their own buddies for water polo or ballet lessons etc.)  The third method is for you to never leave their side, and to keep them in a tight group for defense purposes at all times.  The third method in many ways is easiest, but only for families that have bought into the notion that they may be attacked by armed killers at any time.  Otherwise, they will be difficult to keep together in one place where you can best defend them.  The first method is good, but you will need to be quite rich, and keep in mind you will have to hire another armed guard for each of your family members, the costs add up quickly.

Before I summarize, I am going to discuss the threat evaluation.  If you think the chances are very good of being attacked by armed men, say at least once a year, my methods are appropriate.  However when the threat level drops to one attack in 50 years or more (average), then it may be worth while considering some alternate form of defence that does not involve guns.  The reason I say that is that if you are attacked only once in 50 years, on the average, you may end up losing several loved ones during that time, just from accidental discharges, or gun malfunctions.  I'm just saying that, given the spotty history of gun safety, it would not be practical to keep on such a high state of readiness for more than a year.  But if you're pretty sure you will be in for a shootout within a year, let's continue to lesson 3.  Next time: Lesson 3, how to shoot accurately.

Research for you: On the web blog "Blasphemes", it is reported as a proven, peer reviewed, fact that American use guns once on an average of every 13 seconds to defend themselves.  And that 65 lives are saved for every life lost in gun play.  Considering that about 10,000 lives are lost a year with guns, then it means that in the last ten years, guns have saved 3,200,000, or equivalent to a city the size of Chicago.  And that's in just ten years.  Imagine the carnage if Americans didn't have guns to defend themselves.

http://blasphemes.blogspot.ca/2009_09_01_archive.html  (you need to scroll down to "Some Stats on Guns" September 25, 2009.

Picture: Although this picture came from the website above, it is found all over the Internet, for example it is also on t*ts'n'guns.com.  It is an excellent illustration of just how a typical person would be defending themselves from an armed assault, and it has some propaganda value too, in stirring up hatred against those bad guys who are always trying to kill people like this cute young woman (who I just assume is a "good guy").  I did have to air brush it a little as unfortunately the original pic was too risque for this blog.

Is This Really Criticising Jesus?

Quentin Tarantino's latest movie is Django Unchained, a revenge flick set in the times of southern slavery. On February 16, 2013, Saturday Night Live, hosted by one of the stars of Django, did a spoof on the film called "Djesus Uncrossed", where Jesus (or Djesus, or Jesus H. Christ with the H silent), came back from the dead to wreak vengeance on the Romans.

Was the SNL skit a spoof of the movie, or was it a spoof on God, or was it the most blasphemous skit ever in their history?  I'm sorry I missed that episode, but this skit is posted on the internet, here is one link.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2013/02/17/jesus-rises-on-snl.html

In my opinion, this was not really a criticism of Christianity, it was first and foremost a spoof of the film.  And I have seen almost the exact same theme in a Jesus skit done on "Family Guy" in the episode "North by North Quahog" in the skit "The Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This".  However, "Family Guy" has done a lot of other things the fundamentalist Christians hate.

http://themaxeychronicles.blogspot.ca/2012/09/innocence-of-muslimsthe-anti-muhammad.html

For example (from this web page, showing how Family Guy is blaspheming Jesus)

A standing gag is that Jesus drives a Cadillac Escalade.
 In "North by North Quahog", he is seen in the car in an action trailer for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This and is portrayed by Jim Caviezel opposite Chris Tucker.
According to the National Gun Association's pro-guns film in "And the Wiener is...", Jesus  and Moses used guns to defeat the Romans.
During his second coming, shown in "Stewie Loves Lois", Jesus's stature is found to be short since science has proven that people were shorter in biblical times.
He also makes use of his powers to assist his golf game, as seen in Holy Crap. Although he is "Employee of the Week" at Happy-Go-Lucky Toys, he is on the golf course going for his fourth Birdie. He makes his swing, and the ball lands extremely close to the hole, on the verge of going in. Using his power, he gets the ball to go in.
In Go, Stewie, Go!, Jesus is on the side of the jocks in a dodgeball game against the meek.

So the basic line taken by Sean Hannity on Fox News is that Liberals are too chicken to take on the Muslims, so it's open season on Christians who don't fight back.

http://www.newshounds.us/20130213_sean_hannity_gutless_snl_writers_hate_christianity_but_are_scared_of_islam

If that were true, I suppose it would be a valid point against all these "attacks" on Christianity.  But none of these skits are attacks on Jesus or Christianity.  They are all attacks on the perverted form of Christianity that is "Born Again Christianity".  The Born Again Christians have basically undermined true Christianity by turning all the teachings of Jesus upside down, preaching hate, not love; war, not peace; wealth, not social justice.  If you are satirizing a perverted form of "Christianity", you are in reality speaking up for Jesus.

And, by the way, Fox News, "Family Guy" is a show on your own network, so how about attacking yourselves for blasphemy, instead of Saturday Night Live on NBC.

Put on Your Hip Waders, the Gun Debate is Back

As the gun debate heats up again, I remain convinced that it is one of the most illogical debates I have ever heard.  It makes about as much sense as debating witchcraft or runaway Toyotas  (actually those of two of my favourite topics.)

This morning I read the story of a US Navy Seal gunned down on a shooting range.  I am pretty sure that the NRA will not be able to use the old argument that it happened because "there were not enough guns at the range" and/or that "more guns are needed to protect people at the shooting range".  I wait to hear what their response will be.

But the other story is Sarah McKinley, an 18 year old mother living alone with her baby, who shot and killed knife-wielding intruder Justin Martin.  This story is of course the ideal one to support the NRA's position that assault weapons should be allowed, because it would have made Sarah McKinley even safer than just using a 12 gauge shotgun.  Does their position make any logical sense?  Of course it does if

1. You assume Sarah McKinley will do a better job killing the intruder with an assault rifle than with a shotgun.  (hint, he's dead.  He can't get any deader)  I'm sorry, I didn't present the NRA's side fairly.  They actually said, not that she would kill him deader, but that she would have more chances to kill him if she missed, and that she would be braver with a scarier looking gun, and that Justin Martin would more likely have been scared away by a scarier looking gun.  I don't buy that argument either, because it really does not make a lot of sense to me.

2. The biggest, most illogical assumption is one that I do not see mentioned anywhere. It is the assumption that only Sarah McKinley will have access to buy and carry an assault rifle, but Justin Martin will not be able to do so.  Nowhere in the NRA manifesto does it say that only mothers with babies can have scary guns, and not the men breaking in.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  They want everyone to have access to scary guns, and they are not supportive even of background checks.

Now my question is, was it Obama who took away Justin Martin's gun?  Justin apparently carried only a 12 inch hunting knife.  The point of this story is relevant to the issue of gun control.  In fact, I might even call it the central issue of gun control.  The NRA wants to make it possible for the Justin Martins of the world to have more guns, and the proposed NRA solution is to also give scarier guns to defenseless women.  If that is going to make the women safer, then please refer to the Navy Seal story this morning.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ex-navy-seal-sniper-author-killed-at-texas-gun-range-reports-1.1141037

http://alysonmiers.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/mr-stewart-you-are-under-arrest-for-letting-your-friend-be-a-stalker-a-junkie-and-an-idiot/

Picture: Another kitten picture. I am using kitten pictures because they are cute.  I got this off the internet, a great source of kitten pictures, and some other stuff too.

Was Hitler Really A Gun Control Freak?

Last Sunday sitting at Tim Horton's a friend of mine stated that Hitler had taken guns away from the German people, the implication being that putting in gun controls in the USA would be a precursor to tyranny.  Although this statement was likely to come from dubious sources (like the NRA), I had to let it go, but remembered to look it up when I got home.  What I found was the exact opposite of the belief that Hitler was a leftist gun-control freak.

First, from Wikipedia, a bit of history around gun controls in Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

After Germany lost WW1 in 1918, it was the victorious allies that made it illegal for German citizens to own guns, not Hitler. Hitler had not yet appeared on the political scene, and would not have substantial power until at least ten years later.

In 1938, Hitler did pass a "gun control" law for the German people, but it was actually to ease off the original harsh disarmament after the occupation of WW1.  So Hitler actually made it easier for German people to own guns.  Surprisingly, Hitler's gun control law did not specifically exclude Jews from owning guns, although the law did exclude people of questionable trustworthiness, whatever that means to a Nazi.  And apparently many Nazis did think that Jews had questionable trustworthiness.  But Jews were a very small part of the German population, less than 600,000 in a population of 60 million.  Overall gun ownership in Germany went up under Hitler.

It kind of makes sense that Hitler supported increased gun ownership too, because this law helped the entire firearms industry, that the Nazis would be needing soon.  Because they could sell more guns, they could ramp up production easily for war.

Hitler did make some comments about disarming the people.  I got this from a right wing web site: "Hitler was a Leftist"

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

This is Hitler's statement.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942,

I'm surprised that the quote seems to be intact, often it is found with the part about "in the occupied Russian Territories" left out.   But Hitler is quite right about disarming countries that you conquer.  He also disarmed the Dutch people after they surrendered in 1940. After WW2, the British, American, French and Russians also disarmed the Germans, as the Allies did after WW1. It is commonplace, and it does not make you a "leftist" or a "rightist" either.  Everybody seems to agree on disarming conquered people.


Here is another article on Gun control in Germany by William L. Pierce.

http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

The most ironic thing about all this is that Hitler's main tool for gaining control of the German people was Propaganda, not Gun Control.  And this little story about Hitler being a gun control freak is basically modern right wing propaganda that many people seem to be falling for.  A strong democracy depends on an informed population.  Disinformation is the tool of tyrants, and far more powerful than gun control.  Hitler used propaganda to make Germans hate the Jews, just like right wingers today use propaganda to make people hate liberals, Muslims, socialists etc.  Once the hatred for Jews was accomplished, Hitler had full control of Germany.  The propaganda of hate is the real precursor to tyranny.

Picture: from http://americainchains2009.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/dictators-and-gun-control/

Who Promotes the Gun Culture: Liberals or Conservatives?

I came across what seems to be a reasonable creationist, making a statement about James Lee, the hostage taker at Discovery Channel. In his blog, he had these words:

"before anyone gets too smug about how Darwinism leads to violence, let's remember two words: James Kopp. You know, the guy who bought a sniper rifle and assassinated abortionist Barnett Slepian? The fact is that deranged people do violent things because they're deranged. Darwin no more caused Lee's violent acts than the Bible caused Kopp's."

Well at least no one can accuse blogger Todd Wood of being one sided. On the other hand this was the first time I heard that Darwin causing James Lee to buy a gun and take hostages.

But now I have a name, let me try to compare the two acts in several different ways.

1. James Kopp killed someone, James Lee did not. You may think this is splitting hairs, or that this is unimportant. But there is a fundamental difference in what these people did. Both were arguably deranged, but one was also a murderer. Pointing a gun at someone is not the same as shooting someone in cold blood.

2. Nobody directly or indirectly incited James Lee to do anything.

3. There has been no support shown for James Lee's methods or even the terms of his manifesto after the fact. There was support for James Kopp even after he killed the doctor.
http://my.execpc.com/~awallace/herokopp.htm

4. Kopp is not the only killer. There were other incidents, such as the bombing of abortion clinics on the other side. Also, at least one other abortionist was murdered, Dr. George Tiller (I think it was May 2009) Also Dr. Tiller had been shot and wounded before. Let's not forget John Lennon being murdered by a Born-Again Christian, incited by other people in his church.

5. James Lee threatened The Discovery Channel, which was supposedly on his side, whereas James Kopp murdered Barnett Slepian who was an opponent of his.

So in the final analysis, Todd's assertion is true. Darwin did not cause Lee's violent acts any more than the Bible caused James Kopp to commit murder. But on the other hand, nobody supported Lee's idea of pointing a gun at someone. Many creationists supported James Kopp's actual act of violence. And other creationists have carried out other murders.

So if somebody says James Lee is equivalent to James Kopp, what they are saying in an underhanded way, is that Darwinism and Environmentalism did something to incite James Lee.

These two events are not equivalent. There is still the clear rhetoric of incitement, and the evidence of other acts of violence incited by the right wing (and religious) extremists.

I think the evidence is solid that the right wing extremists are doing the overwhelming amount of violent incitement, especially with the use of guns. Another clue is that the left has been trying to pass "Hate Laws" making it illegal to incite violence, while conservatives oppose such laws. Nobody bats an eye when right wing Christian TV Evangelist Pat Robertson calls for assassination of opponents publicly on television. Have you ever heard Michael Moore or Al Gore calling for the assassination of anyone?

In my opinion, with the gun-happy culture in the USA, promoted by conservatives (including Christians) , it's surprising that more people have not turned to guns as the answer. You can hardly turn on a TV without seeing people waving guns at each other.

Here is a blog on the consequences of violent conservative rhetoric.

http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2010/03/consequences-of-conservative-speech.html